Jackson County District Judge Michael Klaeren disqualified the prosecutor's office in a criminal sexual conduct case this week because the chief assistant prosecutor could be a potential witness.File photo

This makes Rezmierski a potential witness, District Judge Michael Klaeren decided, agreeing with a defense motion filed in March to disqualify Rezmierski and the prosecutor’s office.

The defense argued Rezmierski could not act as a witness and an attorney and her office would have a conflict of interest in calling or cross-examining one of its own at trial.

The prosecution contended Rezmierski was not a witness and could not testify to anything the girl said because such testimony would be “hearsay.” The girl is the only necessary witness, Rezmierski wrote in a responding motion.

The 6-year-old’s statements, made while Rezmierski was preparing the child for trial, directly serve as the basis for modifying charges against the girl’s 45-year-old adopted father, accused of sexually assaulting the girl and masturbating in her presence, Klaeren said Tuesday.

Rezmierski upped one existing charge of second-degree criminal sexual conduct to the more serious crime of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison, and modified the basis for an existing count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct.

The man, represented by lawyer Alfred Brandt, now is charged with three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and a single charge of aggravated indecent exposure, enhanced to a possible life offense because the man is considered a “sexually delinquent person." His name has been withheld because he and the victim share a last name and the Citizen Patriot typically does not publish the names of sexual assault or abuse victims.

Klaeren found there was probable cause to believe the man, who made a recorded confession, committed the crimes and sent his case to Circuit Court, where Klaeren said it will be up to Judge John McBain to appoint a special prosecutor, probably one from another office outside the county.

First, there will likely be a hearing in the higher court. Jerrold Schrotenboer, the county’s chief appellate attorney, said he would ask a circuit judge to review Klaeren’s decision and Brandt told Klaeren he fully expected an appeal.

To make his view clear in later proceedings, Klaeren gave lawyers a detailed explanation of his decision.

“Perhaps the initial interview wasn’t complete enough. Perhaps the new allegations are a bad memory. Perhaps the new allegations are something the child did not initially want to talk about,” the judge said.

“Regardless of the reason why, there is what appears to this court to be a significant addition to the witness’ testimony,” Klaeren said and this is “something that the defense counsel certainly ought to be entitled to explore.”

Rezmierski has to be available to take the stand, he said.

“I think I have a right to call her,” Brandt said after the proceeding.

When reached for reaction, Prosecutor Jerry Jarzynka said only that he respectfully disagrees with the judge and his office would appeal.

In July, the girl talked to a babysitter about her father and the babysitter told the girl’s mother. The information was given to the Blackman-Leoni Township public safety department and the child underwent a forensic interview, a session with a specially trained professional that follows a specific protocol, on July 25 at the Jackson County Child Advocacy Center.

Months later, the defense learned the girl made further allegations, accusing her father of penetration offenses.

The child did not reveal the information to law enforcement officers or child protection workers. She told only Rezmierski, according to Brandt’s motion, and the prosecutor’s office informed Brandt.

Rezmierski believes she talked to the girl three times.

“Defendant’s entire claim appears to rest on the assertion that (the girl) was ‘interviewed’ by a representative of the prosecutor’s office. This assertion is inaccurate,” Rezmierski wrote.

She contends she was not interviewing the girl.

“The people are not only entitled to meet with and prepare witnesses for trial, some might argue we are obliged to, especially when the witness is barely 6 years old and she will be called upon to discuss intimate details of being sexually abused by her father in a courtroom full of strangers.”

Klaeren indicated it did not matter whether the new information resulted from an interview or witness preparation. Distinguishing between the two would be a conversation on semantics, he said.

He said he does not blame Rezmierski or consider her actions inappropriate. As a member of the community, he said he would be angry if a prosecution wasn’t preparing a witness for trial.

Klaeren had multiple hearings on the issue and heard testimony from Detective Joseph Merritt, Detective Sgt. Christopher Boulter and the girl. The courtroom was closed to the public while the child testified.

Brandt never called Rezmierski to the stand. This does not mean there are no questions to ask her, the judge said.